Some like sliced bread. others not; some like stinky cheese, other not.

But these are just opinions and opinions are never right, nor wrong. They simply are.

If I hold an opinion, you can never say my opinion is wrong. You can disagree with that opinion; but as my opinion, it can never be wrong. Nor right.

And if you take everyones opinions; their own personal bÍte noires, pet hates and blind spots, and then codify them into a tool; you set up the situation where the language will simply stagnate into a soulless, innovation quashing, piecemeal reproduction of 1960's algol-style coding.

And the stance that "you can configure it" does stand up because if everyone configures it differently; what has been achieved?

Eventually -- and it has already happened in some quarters -- someone will settle on having a fixed configuration that "everyone" must abide by. But since getting "everyone", or even half a dozen significant someones, to agree upon a single configuration is impossible; "management" will decide. And since in many, even most cases, management is not equipped to understand the arguments -- heck, a lot of them go right over my head -- they will make the simplest decision. The out-of-the-box configuration will become "the standard". And no-one in the know would ever agree to that; so you end up with everyone quietly ignoring/disabling all the things they don't like, and you are back to square one. A totally shambolic waste of time and effort.

The crux of the point I'm making is that of P::C doesn't detect errors; it simply codifies opinions. But opinions differ!

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.